# Jbf Review Process

> Use when you need to understand the Journal of Banking & Finance (JBF) editorial pipeline — the desk screen, double-anonymized refereeing, the role of the USD 350 fee in reviewer rewards, and what to expect between submission and decision. Sets expectations; pair with jbf-rebuttal once you receive an R&R.

- Skill: `thedixitjain/jbf-review-process` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/jbf-review-process`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/jbf-review-process/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: DevOps & Infra
- Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/jbf-review-process

---



# Review Process (jbf-review-process)

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to understand how JBF handles a manuscript
- After submission, to interpret status changes in Editorial Manager
- When deciding how to engage with the fee, the desk screen, and reviewers

## How JBF review works (verified 2026-06-20)

- **Publisher / platform.** Elsevier; the editorial pipeline runs in **Editorial Manager**, reached from the journal homepage on ScienceDirect.
- **Managing Editor.** **Christa Bouwman** (Texas A&M University) is listed by ScienceDirect as Managing Editor. Current Co-Editors are **Edith Hotchkiss** and **Xiaoyan Zhang**.
- **The fee funds review quality.** The **USD 350 non-refundable** submission fee is explicitly used to fund academic activities and **reviewer rewards for timely, high-quality reports**. This is unusual among top finance journals and signals an emphasis on review turnaround.
- **Desk screen first.** Editors can **desk-reject without sending the paper to referees** — even after the fee is paid. A clean, on-scope, well-anonymized submission is what clears this first screen. Free **SSRN** posting becomes available once the paper passes this initial desk review.
- **Double-anonymized refereeing.** Identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. Referees assess scope fit (banking / intermediation / capital markets / corporate finance / regulation), contribution, identification, data, and robustness.
- **Decisions.** Expect the standard ladder: reject, major/minor revision (R&R), or accept. Treat any positive decision short of accept as an R&R and route to `jbf-rebuttal`.

## What clears the desk screen

- [ ] In scope for a **bank/intermediation-focused** finance journal (see jbf-topic-selection)
- [ ] A defensible identification/empirical design (see jbf-identification-strategy)
- [ ] Fully **anonymized** manuscript + separate title page
- [ ] Fee paid or waiver code entered; declarations complete

## Reading Editorial Manager statuses

- **"With Editor" for an extended period** usually means the desk screen or referee recruitment, not a hidden verdict; JBF recruits referees by banking/markets subfield, which can take longer for niche topics. Do not infer outcomes from status text.
- **"Under Review"** — referees secured. The reviewer-reward design favors timely reports, but do not assume a specific turnaround; confirm any timing expectation against the journal's current author guidelines.
- **A status reverting** (e.g., back to "With Editor") commonly reflects a referee dropping out, not a decision being drafted.
- Polite status queries after a long silence go through Editorial Manager — never to a guessed editor name.

## Desk-screen failure patterns at JBF

| Pattern | Why it gets desked |
| --- | --- |
| Generic asset-pricing or macro paper with no intermediation content | scope mismatch with a bank/markets/regulation journal |
| Causal regulation claim with no identification design | referees would reject; the editor saves everyone the round |
| Identity leakage (acknowledgements, metadata, "our earlier JBF paper") | breaks double anonymization; administrative bounce |
| Survey-length introduction with no stated contribution | signals the contribution is not yet formed |

## What JBF referee reports tend to cover

Reports at this venue typically work through: scope fit; the contribution delta against the intermediation literature; identification (endogenous regulation, omitted bank risk, clustering choices); data construction (merger handling, vintages, consolidation filters); robustness breadth; and whether policy implications stay inside the identified margin. Pre-empt each in the manuscript and the desk-to-decision path shortens.

## Anti-patterns

- Treating the fee as a guarantee of full review — it is not; desk rejection still happens
- Submitting a paper out of JBF's bank/finance scope and hoping referees stretch it
- Naming a specific "Editor-in-Chief" in correspondence on the basis of unverified secondary sources
- Breaking anonymity and forcing an administrative bounce-back before review

## Output format

```
【Scope】fits banking/intermediation/markets/regulation? [Y/N]
【Desk readiness】anonymized + declarations + fee/waiver? [Y/N]
【Status read】desk screen → referees → decision
【Next step】on R&R → jbf-rebuttal
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — sources for editor, fee, review-model, data-policy, and submission facts

---

**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Journal-of-Banking-and-Finance-Skills/skills/jbf-review-process/SKILL.md`